The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1200 days in presenting the appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondent in CC No,181 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar dated 7-11-2014. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 3167 OF 2017 Petition under Section 378(4) of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave to present an appeal against the order of acquittal CC.No.181 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1612 of 2OL7 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal has been hled ':y the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.Ll.i,,Ol4 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar in C.C. No.181 of 2OL4, vrhereunder respondent/ accused was acquitted for 1.Lre offences under Sections 27(blliil, 28 and 22(31 ot the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter rele:rred to as 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Redcly, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State.

3. No representation on behalf of respon,lent either physical rnode or virtual mode.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed befor.e the trial Court. \ 2

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case'is that on

19.11.2O13 the complainant-Drugs Inspector along with Mr.B.Govind Singh, Dmgs Inspector (PW.4) and two local rnediators (PWs.2 and 3) raided the prernises of Mr.M.Venkateswarlu at D.No.1-42, Ramapuram Village, Mellacherr.rvu Mandal, Nalgonda District and found that ttre accused stocked dmgs for sale without holding any drug license. Then tre conducted panchanama in the presence of the above said mediators and seized the dmgs, wlrich are irr 23 varieties of physician sarnples (which are not for sale) and 27 varieties of sale packs. Then he conducted panchanarna and seized the drugs. After conducting investigation, he hled complaint belore tlre Court below and the same was took cognizance and nrrmbered as C.C.No.l8l of 2Ol4

6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.Pl to P19 and M.O.l were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were exarnined and no docurnents w€re 3 rnarked. The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary ,evidence on record and after hearing the parties, a-cquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

7. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the State has f-rled the present Appeal.

8. Learned Assistant Fublic prosecutc,r submitted the learned Magistrate without properly considering the oral and docurnentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the accused, though the prosecution established the offence against the acctrsed by exarnining pWs. I to 4 and Exs.p1 to p19. PW.1 in his evidence specifrcally statr:d that the alleged drug stocks were in possession of the accused as on the date of alleged incident. However, the learned Magistrate did not consider the t:vidence of PW. 1 and erroneously acquitted the ac<:used. The impugned judgment passed by the Cou:rt below is contrary to the settled principles of law. F[e:nce, prays to set aside the irnpugned judgment passed by the 4 Court below and convict the accused for tlre offences with which he was charged.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that PWs.2 and 3 who are independent witnesses acted as panch witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution. PWs.1 and 4 are the Investigating Officers. Hence, the Court below has rightly held in para No.13 of the irnpugned judgment, which reads as follows: 'In this case who are independent witnesses are turned hostile at the time of trial- Seizr-rre of M.O.1 highly doubtful, moreover, PW.1 did not collect any docurnent to show that whether the accused attended that shop or the accused is owner of the said shop. To show that he did not place single doct:rnent to prove the above fact in this case. The Drugs Inspector not followed the rules prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics In this case PW. 1 did not secure the Act. presence of VRO and also did not secure the presence of neighbors to prove the fact that he is ttre owner of tl.e said shop. PW. I diC not secure the ownership certificate of the said housc-" 5 1O. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the prosecution has failed to collect any document to show that the accused is owner of the shcp, in which the alleged stocks were seized, and the Investigation ofhcers did not follow the rules prescribe(l under the Act while conducting raid and seizure of the drugs. In view of the same, the learned Magistrate has rightly came to the conclusion that the accused was found not guilty and acquitted him for 1.tLe charges levelled againsl him.

11. In cases o[ acquittal, the Hon'lcle Sttpreme Court in Rawi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi| and anothert, held that while dealing wittr an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be tt:rmed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acqt. ittal adcls r,r p to the presumption of irrnocence in favour o[ the accused. Thus, the appellatr: court has t (20221 a Supreme Court Cascs 536 6 to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acqr-rittal, held at paraTO, as follows: "7O. In the light of tle aboue, th-e High Court and oth.er appellate Courts should follottt the u-tell-settLed pinci,ples crystallized bA n .rnber of JudgrLents if it is goirtg to ouerrttle or oth.erwi* disturb the trial court's aquittal: 7- The appellate court naA onlA ouerntle or othen).)ise disturb the tial court's oquittal if it has 'uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so' A nurnber of instances aise in uLhich the appellate court tuould. laue 'uery substantial and compeLLing reasorts" to disanrd tlrc triat court's decision' "Very substantial an-d annpellirtg rea.sorts" eist tahen: erroneous uiew of lantt; focts is palpablg urong: i) The trial court's conclusion u.tith regard to the ii) The trinl court's decision u)as based on arr iii) Tle triat court's judgment is tikelg to result in iv) The entire approoch of tle trial court in dealing v) The triat court's judgment u)as manikstLA uith the euidene utas pateatlg illegal; "graue miscaniage of justice"; unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court ho.s ignored the euidence or misread the moterial euidence or has ignored mateial documents tike dging declarations/ report of the ballistic expeft, etc' vii) This list is intend.ed. to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue 2 - The appellate court must alwag s giue proper weight and consideration to tlrc findings of the triol court- , (2008) l0 scc 450 7

3. If tuto reasonabLe uieu)s can be re-ached one that teads to acquittal, the other to conuict,-on _the High Courts/ appellate courts must ntle in Jauour of the acatsed."

13. In view of several discrepancies and the principles laid down by the Honlcle Suprr-.rne Court supra, this Court is of the considered vierv that the prosecution Lras rniserably failed to pro\,€) the case against accused and the Court below h.as rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgrnent passed by the learned Magistrate and the appeal is U.able to be disrnissed

14. Accordingly, the crirninal appeal is dis;rnissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, :,f any, shall stand closed SD/-T,VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR I \ \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar 2. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. Two CD Copies ,b ADl(PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 l JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1612 ot 2017 o lili-:i,J .\ 18 |\l[|/ 265 c (J * DISMISSING THE CRLA 1 5i